Can anyone say how or why this would benefit America? What’s the purpose of this meeting? Americans deserve to know because the president works for the American people.
And why doesn't Trump want any witnesses in the room while speaking with Putin? That's not suspicious at all.
Gee, I dunno, maybe it's because every spoken word has the potential to be taken out of context, doused with liberal sauce, and used in Broadcast Warfare???
And Kent, can you come up with a single reason to appease Putin? He’s not backed away from Crimea. It’s confirmed that he’s involved in several elections including our own. He’s known to kill or have killed political opponents and he regulalry mocks NATO, our alliances and the US.
So what’s in it for America and what’s in it for trump?
"lets work together on this and that and this is how we'll do it" if that was said, how can one edit this?
Lets be intellectually honest here, huh? Its very suspicious that trump would not want even his closest advisers in on the meeting. If you can't see that, you are willfully blind and ignorant. So just come out and say it. "I blindly follow anything trump does and says". I'd have a little more respect for you, although I'd be a bit concerned.
Not one single person on this site is genuinely concerned about earning "respect" from you. The fact you even brought it up is the "willfully blind and ignorant" part. You really are a piece of work.
It won't benefit anyone but Trump and Putin, because they will both proclaim it a political victory of YUGE proportions for their respective sides. Can you say "dog and pony show"?
President Barack Obama tried to appease Putin by giving in to the Russian leader's demands that we cancel our missile-defense plan with Poland and the Czech Republic -- and did it on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland.
And while serving as Obama's secretary of state, Hillary Clinton humiliated herself when she gave Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov a giant red button with the word "reset" on it (which, adding insult to injury, misspelled the Russian word for "reset" to read "overload")."
Reminds me of a great thing Ronald Reagan said, to paraphrase.
"How do you tell who is a Communist? They are someone who reads Lenin and Marx. How do you tell who is an anti-Communist? They are someone who understands it."
Then, when you're in public and the cameras are rolling, you play the good little politicians, and say all the nicey nice thing you're supposed to say to be "Diplomatic". Both sides get to look good to the outside world, and to their people.
Have you never had to pull someone aside and say, "OK here's the deal..." before you deal with them in a public setting?
I thought it was obvious why they had a private face to face.
Trump is a business man, he's prepared, he's going 1-1. Besides it's not 1-1, both have translators with them.
Annony Mouse's Link
Russia’s ambassador to the U.S. on Wednesday said the Trump administration needs to provide proof that Russian officials meddled in the 2016 election, or stop talking about it. (continued at link)
Rather embarrassing for Mueller and cohorts for the Russians' demand to see proof of the accusations. One small fact not heard over the caterwauling of the "Trump is traitor" horde is that no matter what they want to accuse the Russians of...the core of our legal system is that one is innocent until proven guilty. Yet all we have seen is the accusations and emoting from the usual TDS talking heads...and hero Mueller has passed this case away such that there will never be any trial or exposure of facts...just a hyped branding of guilt by accusation.
Trump should issue an executive order declassifying every single document, email, voice recording WRT the entire movement to destroy the foundation of our Constitution.
There are certain posters that I don't spend any time going after. Obvious trolls are part of that group. Unlike others, I said I wouldn't, I don't, and I won't.
That's the whole point of the anonymous quote I posted.
Ironically, some of the very people that are constantly accusing others of being untruthful and not living up to their promises and therefore shouldn't be welcome here, don't seem to have any problem being untruthful and not living up to their promises.
Is that a "BINGO" too?
Why do you think that is Bentstick?
I'll tell you why. By ramping up the rhetoric, he has been successful in goading people, including and especially the ones that stated emphatically that they never would, into playing his game. He get's off on duping them. And they allow him to do it.
I told you so at the time and I will tell you again, I admire the fact that you have decided to no longer play. It's a shame other's don't have the discipline to do the same.
"Editors’ note: In light of the Left's deranged hysteria in response to President Trump's recent press conference with Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, marked by pathological accusations that Trump has engaged in "treason," Frontpage has deemed it important to bring attention to a forgotten story of verifiable scheming with the Kremlin -- by the late Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy against President Ronald Reagan. We are reprinting below Frontpage editor Jamie Glazov’s 2008 interview with Dr. Paul Kengor, who unearthed documentation detailing Kennedy's outreach to the KGB and Soviet leader Yuri Andropov during the height of the Cold War, in which the Democratic Senator offered to collude with the Soviets to undermine President Reagan. There were no screams of moral indignation, or accusations of treason, about this matter from the Left at that time -- nor since." ........rest at link ^^
Why is no one allowed to verify if he cut a secret deal w Putin?
Of course Putin recorded the meeting. Nobody could seriously doubt that. Because not even Putin trusts trump and Putin is a professional at what he does. Trump is strictly a foreign relations amateur.
somewhere a guy named Rex is holding a glass with a good single malt saying "I told you he was a moron”!
They talked about their grandchildren.
Unfortunately, we will probably never know. Some posters simply lack the discipline to ever find out. In addition, the tough guy persona that they attempt to portray is really nothing but a mask.
Psychologists have known for a long time that when someone resorts to name calling, it usually speaks to feelings of inferiority and a feeling of inadequacy of the person doing the name calling. People stoop to the process of name calling when they feel lesser and need to make themselves feel more powerful.
Which is why I don’t buy into his last description for everyone. I can tell who it would apply to here though. So, it’s not all wrong. Nor is he immune from it. He just does it differently.
You want to know a calm cat. TD. He is always on the factual side of things and, never has to my knowledge, posted a purely emotional response. Can’t say that for anyone else. And, I watch them all. So, let’s all strive to be more like Tom. This would be a better place.
Interesting assessment. Some I agree with and some I question.
" Only thing is he gets a goat for certain people and he really drives it home. "
This part I found particularly interesting and worthy of a deeper dive.
You are absolutely correct when you say that I take issue with certain people more than others. However, I'm not sure I agree with the reason. Is it because I get a goat for certain posters, or is it simply because certain posters post demonstrably false things at a rate that literally dwarfs others? Or they repeatedly say they are going to do things, then they repeatedly do the opposite. "The squeaky wheel gets the grease" as it were.
When a poster starts multiple threads per day, with nothing more than links to "questionable" theories and news sites, wouldn't it stand to reason that a poster like that is going to be questioned at the same rate that they post? If you start 5 threads per day, you are going to get noticed (favorably and unfavorably) 5 times more than a person who may only start 1 thread per day.
When a poster publicly commits to do one thing, then does the exact opposite 5,10, 15 times a day, sometimes within the same thread, wouldn't it stand to reason that actions like that get pointed out at somewhere near those same multiples...especially when those posters demand in many of those posts that others live up to their commitments?
At the end of the day, I take issue with the posts that I feel are demonstrably false, unsupportable, or hypocritical...regardless of who posts them. It doesn't matter if they are on the far left, the far right, or somewhere in between or even someone I consider a friend. I would hope they would do the same.
Take Matt for example. Matt posts a lot of things that I wholeheartedly agree with and I say so. For that, I am accused of being a closet liberal. When I wholeheartedly disagree with Matt, he accuses me of wanting to distance myself from him, apparently for some nefarious reason.
Yes, I do enjoy the debate. I find it intellectually stimulating, but only when both sides are willing and capable of supporting their arguments in an intelligent manner. Some people seem to be afraid of that and the resulting discourse is obvious.
I do agree that people expect sides. And, most want to categorize others into “with us”or “against us” teams. I don’t know why. But, all of us exhibit that
I happen to think that in all but the rarest instances, you are determined to base your opinion on reality. It’s only issues that’s been close to you personally that facts or what we had as facts, didn’t seem to sway your opinion.
Thank you for acknowledging that, and I do make every effort to do just that. If I post an opinion, I make no bones about the fact that it is my opinion, and that others are welcome, even encouraged to disagree. All I ask is that you support your opinion factually. Almost without fail, when a person resorts to vulgarity and name calling, the factual argument has been lost.
Even when it comes to facts, I do my absolute best to verify things before I post them. I do this for a couple reasons.
1. First and foremost, I think we owe it to each other to trade in reality. Nobody actually learns anything from fake news and emotional rants.
2. Second, and to a lesser extent, I realize that if I am willing to point those things out, I better be damn sure that what I post is at least factually correct or there are going to be a number of people that are ready, able, and gleefully waiting to shove it in my face. I get that...and it's OK. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Lastly, it's hard not to be emotional or to respond in kind. I do my best, but I don't always succeed. I have however identified a number posters that in my opinion are either incapable of discussing things factually or rationally at all, or that only trade personal insults, or are obviously trolls. When I get to the point where I can no longer keep myself from responding in kind, or I have determined that a poster is a liar, can't be trusted, emotionally incapable, or a troll, I refuse to respond directly to them at all. That in no way suggests that things they have said cannot be discussed rationally with other posters, I just will never discuss anything with them again. Those posters are few and far between but they do exist.
You know I am just kidding, seriously. You always have posts backed by facts and we appreciate that.
That's easy. Demonstrate to my mind that you are a liar, can't be trusted, emotionally unstable, or an obvious troll. To date, there are only 4 such posters (or 44 depending on whether you count all of one's identities).